Government is being lobbied by different sides of the industry with opposing views on Zero Carbon Homes 2016 – the Federation of Master Builders wants the deadline postponed, while the Association for the Conservation of Energy has accused it of “dithering”.
In a letter sent to chancellor George Osborne ahead of the 20 March Budget Statement, the FMB urged him to rethink the timeline for low energy homes, originally set pre-recession in 2006, to make projects cheaper and simpler for house builders.
The FMB argues that the extra costs associated with zero carbon homes will further restrict supply in the depressed housing market. It wants government to scrap the 2016 deadline, and instead adopt the more leisurely timetable envisaged by the EU, which requires member states to ensure that all new buildings are nearly zero-energy by 31 December, 2020, with an intermediate step to improve the energy performance of buildings by 2015.
The government is still publicly committed to the zero carbon homes 2016 target, as well as a deadline of 2018 for zero carbon public buildings and 2019 for private sector non-domestic buildings.
FMB director Brian Berry said: “Our own survey of smaller housing developers found that the proposals to change Part L of the Building Regulations in October this year could add more than £3,500 to the cost of building a new house. This will discourage even more developers from building new homes, further exacerbating the desperate housing shortage and locking low and middle-income buyers out of the market.”
The FMB quotes NHBC statistics showing that in 1988, firms completing less than 500 units a year delivered two thirds of UK housing. However, the number of SME house building firms then declined and by 2010 the proportion of new homes delivered by small builders had dropped to just a third.
But the FMB’s arguments about the cost of building zero carbon homes were rejected by Paul King, chief executive at the UK Green Building Council, who insisted the existing timeline was achievable: “The industry has known this was coming since 2006 and the proposed improvements [to Part L] were the subject of extensive work by the Zero Carbon Hub in consultation with industry.
“Some builders are already building to expected 2013 standards for little or no additional cost, compared to 2010 standards. Evidence shows that even if increased standards initially add costs, they usually reduce once builders begin to figure out how to achieve those standards cost effectively,” he said.
Meanwhile, the government has been accused of “dithering” regarding the delayed introduction of Part L 2013 (originally scheduled for April 2013) and uncertainty over progress to zero carbon homes in an open letter from the Association for the Conservation of Energy.
The letter, signed by eight ACE member companies, argues that construction product companies have invested heavily in developing new products to meet the expected higher standards, and any delay in implementing the regulations will impact on jobs and future investment.
Andrew Warren, director of ACE, said companies and investors were growing increasingly concerned. He told The Guardian: “Companies have been going to the City to get investment, to enable them to meet the targets, do the training they need and create jobs, and they were doing so based on the timetable set out. If it doesn’t happen on time, companies are vulnerable. This is the real world and I’m getting bored of explaining this to ministers. Business will waste time and money unless government delivers.”
